Eric Wong <e@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I renamed it to intentionally break my build. This cuts both ways. If you work without any throw-away merges, it is GOOD to make sure any new use other people added will be spotted by the compiler by breaking the build. It will force you to resolve all such breakages until you can move on to other topics, and it will also force you to commit to your topic that deliberately breaks the build by renaming. If you want to avoid committing to the current iteration of topic, however, then that would mean you'd need a reliable way to rebuild evil merges (aka resolution of semantic conflicts) so that you can keep parts of more recent history more flexible (similar to how 'pu' is managed). My plan is to have ew/hashmap topic for a few days while ejecting the js/add-i topic which semantically conflicts with the changed way hashmaps ought to be used temporarily, and when I have enough time and concentration, try to see if I can come up with a good semantic conflict resolution that I can keep reusing (aka refs/merge-fix/). If it happens, we'll see both topics, and if it doesn't, I'll then drop ew/hashmap and queue js/add-i and rinse and repeat from there ;-)
